08 Jun 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Constitution of the United States ought to be the criteria for determining what are the powers vested in the Federal government. Article one, Section 8, (enumerated powers). In the first paragraph of that Section is the famous "general welfare" clause.
Do you feel the same about all federal laws? If so, why? If not, what are the criteria you use to determine whether or not something should be legislated at the federal or at some lower level?
The broad view is that justifies spending on almost anything imaginable. The argument against that view, is that view would make the rest of Section 8 immaterial. Why would the framers bother listing government responsibilities after leaving it wide open in the beginning?
08 Jun 14
Originally posted by normbenignThe Federal minimum wage was unanimously upheld by the SCOTUS in US v. Darby in 1941. The Court did not rely on the "general welfare clause" but on the specific enumerated power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce:
The Constitution of the United States ought to be the criteria for determining what are the powers vested in the Federal government. Article one, Section 8, (enumerated powers). In the first paragraph of that Section is the famous "general welfare" clause.
The broad view is that justifies spending on almost anything imaginable. The argument against ...[text shortened]... framers bother listing government responsibilities after leaving it wide open in the beginning?
The motive and purpose of the present regulation are plainly to make effective the Congressional conception of public policy that interstate commerce should not be made the instrument of competition in the distribution of goods produced under substandard labor conditions, which competition is injurious to the commerce and to the states from and to which the commerce flows. The motive and purpose of a regulation of interstate commerce are matters for the legislative judgment upon the exercise of which the Constitution places no restriction, and over which the courts are given no control. McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27; Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 513, and cases cited. "The judicial cannot prescribe to the legislative department of the government limitations upon the exercise of its acknowledged power." Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 Wall. 533. Whatever their motive and purpose, regulations of commerce which do not infringe some constitutional prohibition are within the plenary power conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause. Subject only to that limitation, presently to be considered, we conclude that the prohibition of the shipment interstate of goods produced under the forbidden substandard labor conditions is within the constitutional authority of Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/312/100
08 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThe two most misused words in the Constitution, the general welfare clause, and the regulation of interstate commerce. How many minimum wage jobs do you actually think involve interstate commerce?
The Federal minimum wage was unanimously upheld by the SCOTUS in US v. Darby in 1941. The Court did not rely on the "general welfare clause" but on the specific enumerated power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce:
The motive and purpose of the present regulation are plainly to make effective the Congressional conception of public polic ...[text shortened]... he constitutional authority of Congress.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/312/100
Is a janitor making minimum wage engaging in interstate commerce? Are Mickey D personnel doing so?
Originally posted by normbenignAll of them.
The two most misused words in the Constitution, the general welfare clause, and the regulation of interstate commerce. How many minimum wage jobs do you actually think involve interstate commerce?
Is a janitor making minimum wage engaging in interstate commerce? Are Mickey D personnel doing so?
Yes; Mickey D personnel are involved in interstate commerce - where do you think the products sold in a Mickey D's come from?
The Framers of the Constitution intended that the central government have broad authority to regulate economic activity in the nation. The Constitution itself was created in response to an economic crisis in the 1780's. Congress and the courts have confirmed the broad scope of that power since almost the beginning.
EDIT: And:
The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. See McCulloch [p119] v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421. Cf. United States v. Ferger, 250 U.S. 199.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd you are pretending that all of the commerce clause rulings are justified by actual interstate commerce?
All of them.
Yes; Mickey D personnel are involved in interstate commerce - where do you think the products sold in a Mickey D's come from?
The Framers of the Constitution intended that the central government have broad authority to regulate economic activity in the nation. The Constitution itself was created in response to ...[text shortened]... See McCulloch [p119] v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 421. Cf. United States v. Ferger, 250 U.S. 199.
The crisis in the 1780s was primarily in border State areas on the east coast, where the States tended to compete for shipping business, and so competed with Federal collection of tariffs. It is quite a stretch from there to regulating the wage of all kinds of menial jobs nationwide.
Originally posted by normbenignWe've discussed your bizarre version of the circumstances regarding the creation of the Constitution many times. They are a fantasy. The problem you keep insisting was the main reason for the Constitution was solved by another provision; the Commerce Clause would be excess verbiage in your formulation. That is utter nonsense.
And you are pretending that all of the commerce clause rulings are justified by actual interstate commerce?
The crisis in the 1780s was primarily in border State areas on the east coast, where the States tended to compete for shipping business, and so competed with Federal collection of tariffs. It is quite a stretch from there to regulating the wage of all kinds of menial jobs nationwide.
Yes all the commerce clause rulings I can think of are consistent with the original Hamiltonian vision of a broad power in Congress to regulate economic activity in the entire nation. They may well have varied on what they believe such policy should be (they did not have the experience we have) but that the Congress should be able to decide such policy is completely consistent with their intentions.
08 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderThe commerce clause was a response to shipping into the new nation around Chesapeake Bay which bordered quite a number of states.
We've discussed your bizarre version of the circumstances regarding the creation of the Constitution many times. They are a fantasy. The problem you keep insisting was the main reason for the Constitution was solved by another provision; the Commerce Clause would be excess verbiage in your formulation. That is utter nonsense.
Yes all the c ...[text shortened]... he Congress should be able to decide such policy is completely consistent with their intentions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
"During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited."
http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm#IIB
"Alexander Hamilton described the problem thus: "The interfering and unneighbourly regulations of some States, contrary to the true spirit of the Union, have in different instances given just cause of umbrage and complaint to others...we may reasonably expect...that the citizens of each, would at length come to be considered and treated by the others in no better light than that of foreigners and aliens.""
http://www.neusysinc.com/columnarchive/colm0063.html
That is the Hamiltonian view of commerce, not the commonplace notion that almost everything has some attachment to commerce, so then everything can be regulated under the Commerce Clause.
A look at the geography of the Chesapeake Bay region and the Hudson River valley shows that these major early trade routes bordered multiple States and required rules of commerce to lubricate free trade. It didn't authorize Congress to dictate wages for farm workers in Western regions of the frontier. That construction wasn't Hamilton's but FDR's.
Originally posted by normbenignJesus H. Christ. How many times do we have to go through this?
The commerce clause was a response to shipping into the new nation around Chesapeake Bay which bordered quite a number of states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
"During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited."
http://www.bu.edu/rbarnet ...[text shortened]... farm workers in Western regions of the frontier. That construction wasn't Hamilton's but FDR's.
Hamilton wasn't discussing the Commerce Clause in that quote; he was discussing this provision:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Article I, Section 10
The idea that Hamilton had some narrow view of Federal government power to regulate the economic well-being of the nation is laughable.
EDIT: Wherever I see ellipses in quotes of the Framers, my radar goes off. The Hamilton quote is from Federalist 22 and the omitted portion says:
“The commerce of the German empire† is in continual trammels, from the multiplicity of the duties which the several princes and states exact upon the merchandises passing through their territories; by means of which the fine streams and navigable rivers with which Germany is so happily watered, are rendered almost useless.”
http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/jbaker/Federalist_No._22.html
Obviously the provision in Article I, Section 10 resolved this issue. The Commerce Clause was completely separate.
08 Jun 14
Originally posted by no1marauderHamilton's view of the Federal government may have been broader than many of the framers, but it would have still been narrow by today's standards.
Jesus H. Christ. How many times do we have to go through this?
Hamilton wasn't discussing the Commerce Clause in that quote; he was discussing this provision:
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: an ...[text shortened]... view of Federal government power to regulate the economic well-being of the nation is laughable.
We have to go through this because you haven't made convincing arguments in the past.
08 Jun 14
But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
Federalist 10, James Madison
08 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenign(Shrug) You reach pre-set positions and no facts can ever possible change them. The argument that the Commerce Clause was added to the Constitution to fix a problem that another provision had already dealt with in its entirety in nonsensical. You have never made an argument that made any sense to the contrary.
Hamilton's view of the Federal government may have been broader than many of the framers, but it would have still been narrow by today's standards.
We have to go through this because you haven't made convincing arguments in the past.
Hamilton's views regarding the proper interpretation of various Constitutional provisions regarding economic matters was the prevailing one among the Framers as the resolution of the Bank of the United States controversy showed. He invoked the Commerce Clause as an argument for the constitutionality of the bank; that would make no sense under your interpretation.
08 Jun 14
Accordingly, such only are the regulations to be found in the laws of the United States whose objects are to give encouragement to the enterprise of our own merchants, and to advance our navigation and manufactures. And it is in reference to these general relations of commerce, that an establishment which furnishes facilities to circulation, and a convenient medium of exchange and alienation, is to be regarded as a regulation of trade.
The Secretary of State further argues, that if this was a regulation of commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State as to its external. But what regulation of commerce does not extend to the internal commerce of every State ? What are all the duties upon imported articles amounting to prohibitions, but so many bounties upon domestic manufactures, affecting the interests of different classes of citizens, in different ways? What are all the provisions in the Coasting Acts which relate to the trade between district and district of the same State? In short, what regulation of trade between the States but must affect the internal trade of each State? What can operate upon the whole, but must extend to every part ?
Alexander Hamilton
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp